Darrav Singh v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2022WRIC/31942/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Darrav Singh sought writ-jurisdiction compensation for a tube well and a room omitted by mistake from the recital of a registered sale deed transferring his land to the State of U.P. and others. The Court upheld the maintainability objection, held that any grievance regarding the sale consideration lies only before the Civil Court by a properly instituted suit, and disposed of the petition with liberty to seek other legal remedies without expressing any opinion on merits (decided 12.1.2022 by Manoj Misra and Sameer Jain, JJ.).

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such other legal remedy, as may be advised; no opinion expressed on the merits of the claim. ¶¶13

Darrav Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such other legal remedy, as may be advised; no opinion expressed on the merits of the claim.

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who transferred land to the respondents under a registered sale deed, is entitled to compensation for an existing tube well and a room on that land whose recital was omitted from the sale deed by mistake. +1 more

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

The Court endorsed the preliminary objection that a grievance in respect of the sale consideration for the property transferred cannot be raised in writ jurisdiction, as that would amount to questioning the sale deed.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

Any grievance of the petitioner can only be addressed by the Civil Court on a properly instituted suit.ratio¶¶10
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such other legal remedy as may be advised, and the Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merit of the petitioner's claim.ratio¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - C No. 31942 of 2021 — Darrav Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Order Date 12.1.2022; Bench: Manoj Misra and Sameer Jain, JJ.). The petitioner sought compensation in respect of a tube well and a room constructed on land transferred by him to the respondents through a registered sale deed, contending that by mistake the recital of the existing tube well and room could not be made in the deed. The learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection on maintainability: the sale deed having been executed voluntarily, all rights over the land transferred and the sale consideration paid, a grievance regarding the sale consideration cannot be raised in writ jurisdiction as it would amount to questioning the sale deed. The Court agreed, holding that any such grievance can only be addressed by the Civil Court on a properly instituted suit. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies, the Court making clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim.

Darrav Singh v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darrav Singh v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalicharan @ Karua and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjay Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ghanshyam Pal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohd. Shamim Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Praveen Kumar Vs Union of India and 2 Others